Damned if you do?

Damned if you do, damned if you don't?

WASHINGTON — The White House said Wednesday a revised policy on granting security clearances to gays and lesbians does not reflect a change in how the government will treat sexual orientation.

But several Democrats denounced the new rules.

"The Bush administration is waging a covert war on loyal federal employees who happen to be gay," said California Rep. Henry Waxman, the top Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee.

The administration rewrote a 1997 regulation that had said sexual orientation "may not be used as a basis" for denying clearances or determining whether individuals should be eligible to access to classified information unless it could make them vulnerable to coercion or exploitation.

President Bush's updated language says security clearances cannot be denied "solely on the basis of the sexual orientation of the individual."

Okay... I fail to see a problem here. The old Clintonized version said you can't deny security clearance based on sexual orientation, except when the behavior may open yourself up to coercion or blackmail. Bush's version says you can't deny based solely on sexual orientation. Does anybody really see a disconnect? I don't.

Gay rights activists said the change could open the door to added attention on sexual orientation — and discrimination.

(hey, morons--isn't that what you wanted with your call for extra prison time for "hate crimes" against homosexuals, and your call for penalties for discrimination against gays in employment and housing???)

(Mass. Rep Barney) Frank, who is gay, said the administration is taking a step backward by changing the Clinton-era protections on security clearances. Frank said it is too soon to know the impact.

"Of course, sexual misbehavior could be a grounds for denying a security clearance," he said. "But that's irrelevant as to whether the misbehavior is gay or straight, unless you think that sexual behavior by gay people is inherently misbehavior."

So what will this new policy change? The answer? Zero--zip--nada. But then again, Bush would have caught hell if he would have left it out. Just another business-as-usual-must-criticize-Bush-policy-just- because-it's-Bush-policy moment in the life of a party void of substantive ideas.

(Filed under moonbat adventures)